Re: Court nondecision on belt spanking, Judge Judy on spanking, similar Scottish case -- Perspectives on Boys' Spankings 2

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: Court nondecision on belt spanking, Judge Judy on spanking, similar Scottish case

Author:
Lucas
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 10:27:41 03/28/26 Sat
In reply to: Graeme to Lucas 's message, "Associated Press article explains it better" on 21:29:14 03/25/26 Wed

Thank you to Graeme for finding the authentic details on this case.

It is a little disappointing because I was hoping that it would be a court ruling that there's nothing wrong with a parent using a belt on a kid's bare bottom if they deserve it.

Instead, the court seems to have somehow dodged the issue. First of all by saying that an open-handed swat over clothing is not excessive punishment (which is definitely not a revolutionary verdict even in the most anti-spanking parts of the USA). And then secondly by saying that it doesn't need to make a ruling on the belt spanking either way, because there's insufficient proof that it happened.

Which I think is what some people call "a cop-out"!

It seems to be mixing up the idea of the open-handed swat being (or not being) "excessive corporal punishment" with the idea of the belting being (or not being) "excessive corporal punishment". Some of the article authors don't seem to be clear which of these the original county family court was ruling on.

I'm not really sure what caused the appellate court to make that decision over the belt part of the case. There's a possibility that they just didn't feel like the father was guilty of neglect, and claiming lack of evidence was just an easy way to get out of it. Or maybe the only evidence for the belt spanking was witness statements (from the boy or the mother?) and the witnesses didn't now want to repeat their statements.

Another aspect is the report that the belt spanking was on "buttocks, legs and arms". Which makes it seem like an out-of-control spanking the same as one we discussed recently that left belt marks all over a little kid's back. So not an ideal spanking from that point of view.

I like the comment in one article that "When they got home, the father supposedly pulled out a belt and administered an old-fashioned whooping!" It sounds like the article author expects most of the readers to be either approving of this old-fashioned approach, or at least not outraged by it.

Judge Judy (who later had various TV shows) spent a long time as a Family Court Judge in this same state. She had a reputation for being harsh with defendants, and I suspect she wouldn't have found the father guilty of neglect just for giving a belt spanking.

When she was doing her TV shows (which was a form of binding arbitration, not an actual court) she didn't actually have the authority to make findings of neglect etc. But in one case that I saw that involved a belt spanking of a young boy, she was completely neutral on the subject of spanking, and just repeated several times "some people choose to discipline their children that way", without saying it was a good thing or a bad thing.

In the TV show Judge Judy didn't have the power to find kids guilty of anything, but she did very often give them a severe verbal telling off if they deserved it (and occasionally when they didn't). But for cases where there were allegations of parents mistreating kids, Judge Judy always sent the kids out of the room before hearing the case.

A similar high profile case in the UK was a primary school teacher in Scotland who was convicted of assault in 1999 for spanking his 8-year-old daughter on her bare bottom in a dentist's waiting room because she didn't co-operate. That decision also seems odd because parental spanking was legal in Scotland at the time. The teacher got his job back two years later, and was in legal disputes over child protective services supervision of his children for a long time too.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

Re: Court nondecision on belt spanking, Judge Judy on spanking, similar Scottish case Graeme to Lucas 12:10:55 03/28/26 Sat

[ Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (Registered users only):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Thank you to Graeme for finding the authentic details >on this case. > >It is a little disappointing because I was hoping that >it would be a court ruling that there's nothing wrong >with a parent using a belt on a kid's bare bottom if >they deserve it. > >Instead, the court seems to have somehow dodged the >issue. First of all by saying that an open-handed swat >over clothing is not excessive punishment (which is >definitely not a revolutionary verdict even in the >most anti-spanking parts of the USA). And then >secondly by saying that it doesn't need to make a >ruling on the belt spanking either way, because >there's insufficient proof that it happened. > >Which I think is what some people call "a cop-out"! > >It seems to be mixing up the idea of the open-handed >swat being (or not being) "excessive corporal >punishment" with the idea of the belting being (or not >being) "excessive corporal punishment". Some of the >article authors don't seem to be clear which of these >the original county family court was ruling on. > >I'm not really sure what caused the appellate court to >make that decision over the belt part of the case. >There's a possibility that they just didn't feel like >the father was guilty of neglect, and claiming lack of >evidence was just an easy way to get out of it. Or >maybe the only evidence for the belt spanking was >witness statements (from the boy or the mother?) and >the witnesses didn't now want to repeat their >statements. > >Another aspect is the report that the belt spanking >was on "buttocks, legs and arms". Which makes it seem >like an out-of-control spanking the same as one we >discussed recently that left belt marks all over a >little kid's back. So not an ideal spanking from that >point of view. > >I like the comment in one article that "When they got >home, the father supposedly pulled out a belt and >administered an old-fashioned whooping!" It sounds >like the article author expects most of the readers to >be either approving of this old-fashioned approach, or >at least not outraged by it. > >Judge Judy (who later had various TV shows) spent a >long time as a Family Court Judge in this same state. >She had a reputation for being harsh with defendants, >and I suspect she wouldn't have found the father >guilty of neglect just for giving a belt spanking. > >When she was doing her TV shows (which was a form of >binding arbitration, not an actual court) she didn't >actually have the authority to make findings of >neglect etc. But in one case that I saw that involved >a belt spanking of a young boy, she was completely >neutral on the subject of spanking, and just repeated >several times "some people choose to discipline their >children that way", without saying it was a good thing >or a bad thing. > >In the TV show Judge Judy didn't have the power to >find kids guilty of anything, but she did very often >give them a severe verbal telling off if they deserved >it (and occasionally when they didn't). But for cases >where there were allegations of parents mistreating >kids, Judge Judy always sent the kids out of the room >before hearing the case. > >A similar high profile case in the UK was a primary >school teacher in Scotland who was convicted of >assault in 1999 for spanking his 8-year-old daughter >on her bare bottom in a dentist's waiting room because >she didn't co-operate. That decision also seems odd >because parental spanking was legal in Scotland at the >time. The teacher got his job back two years later, >and was in legal disputes over child protective >services supervision of his children for a long time >too.
Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Court nondecision on belt spanking, Judge Judy on spanking, similar Scottish case	Graeme to Lucas	12:10:55 03/28/26 Sat